Actually the 'i' in 'Ida' is pronounced the way you pronounce 'i' in 'India'. Ida is a Scandinavian female name. Not that it's a big deal, or that anyone in the USA should be aware of this. Just mentioning.
On May 19, 2009, the team revealed their findings to the world at a press conference, simultaneously with online publication of the paper in PLoS ONE (for naming purposes, the paper was officially published in print on May 21, 2009). The paper included a statement that the authors were not advocating the possibility that the species could be ancestral to later anthropoid primates. Wikipedia and sourced......
cont....."Ida," a "missing link" found in Germany, is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate and is being hailed by some as a milestone in human evolution" It seems IDA did not meet the challenge & yet must still must go through ever changing goal post. And you are wrong. It was actually the press release that came months before you posted video.
@benthemiester Show me the press release. Ida obviously did meet the challenge, as I explained in this video, by citing the goal post which was anchored firmly in place in the previous video. Why do you have so much vitriol when you're apparently wrong about everything you claim or believe? Or have I just answered my own question?
@AronRa If I may be so bold as to answer a question directed at someone else, I suspect the answer to your question, Aron, is that "benthemiester" has an over-sized amygdala.
How can this people handle been proved wrong again and again and again in the same video. They have no shame. this is almost disgusting, is like that 2 girls one cup video.
in my defense i was tired when i watched this but i thought AronRa was talking into a golf club aside from that great video and with that great and funny video
I saw your so called prediction from the video you cited and looked at the date. You made the video after it was discovered that Ida was not what the scientist claimed it to be. That's not a prediction. That is a statement after the fact, and in this video your still trying to to make a case for Ida. You seem to be all over the place with this one.
@benthemiester My post is the first one I know of addressing this matter in the way that I did. Still -you said Ida was a failed prediction, but I showed that I had already made exactly that prediction months earlier with the original release of my 'monkey video'. So how was my vindicated prediction wrong?
You couldn't answer any of my simple & fair questions and now you want to quibble about revised definitions that you said didn't exist. I told you why you were wrong about Ida and you have nothing to refute it. Again where are all the paleontologist who believe Ida was apart of the human family as first advertised? There is an old saying Arona, it goes something like this, "don't let your mouth write a check that your ass cant cash" It seems u not only wrote a check but posted a video also.
@benthemiester I did answer your questions. But you've still never told me why you think I'm wrong. I'm clearly not wrong, and I can even show you that I had already refuted your argument several months before you made it.
I believe if I am not mistaken and according to your threads below that your original point was that these terms have never been revised. I have demonstrated that you were incorrect.
@benthemiester You have not shown that the meaning of ‘macroevolution’ which I apply today is not the same meaning as was applied originally. But you’re welcome to cite both definitions if you still think you can prove your point, and compare them to mine.
@AronRa You also said I never answered why you should take down down video when I clearly did, and if you look at my threads you will see that I did. Then after you said that, you go on to say you refuted my arguments months before I said it. How can you refute my argument when you claim I never offered argument? Again I do enjoy the humor in your videos.
@benthemiester You never did explain why I should delete this video. You obviously misunderstood my point in this video as in previous ones, but now that you know better, why are you still arguing that I should delete it? Why?
@benthemiester Then let me clarify; the meaning of that term today does not conflict with any prior meaning. It can be revised, refined, or made more precise without being changed so that it no longer means any of the same things that it used to.
@AronRa Your playing a word game about definitions. I am not a gullible kid, and I choose my words carefully. Your first statement was that it hasn't been revised, and when I gave you evidence that it was, & u changed goal post. This is really not pertinent to the original statement. The fact is that every article written about Ida has now done a 180 degree turn from the original claim. Everyone in the field of paleontology understands this. Where are all the scholarly Ida supporters now?
@benthemiester I said the meaning of the word has not changed, and it hasn’t. The meaning I apply now applied in its original context too. As I already demonstrated in my video, Ida Know from last year, the 180 degree turn you’re talking about didn’t happen. A very few scientists and press had over sensationalized and misrpresented this find, and I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to post a correction to that, and the scientific community proved to side with me on that.
@benthemiester Answer the question that you keep ignoring every time I ask it: Now that you’ve seen –and even explained by example- how a transitional species could be falsified, why do you say it can not be? And why do you say I should delete this video?
@benthemiester My point is that the term, 'transitional' is falsifiable despite your claim that it is not. Now once again I ask, why do you think I should delete this video?
@AronRa Its not my claim, it is the modern version and definition that makes it non falsifiable just by the way the modern term is defined itself. If any living animal is a transitional according to revise definition then how do you falsify this? As for my answer, it has already been given. I kept it simple. Please look at threads. Please tell me why so many in the scientific community disagree with this human missing link myth, What evidence do you have that is not based on prior assumptions?
@AronRa I really don't know how you personable apply the meaning. I don't really like to get into Simon says Simon didn't say arguments. I'm speaking of molecule to man. You can add or take away any definitions you choose to except. I'm a straight talker not a debate strategist and don't need it to be. We can argue about micro & macro all day but the point is Ida is another failed prediction. Arona do you believe the modern synthesis is sufficient as taught to us for the last 70 years?
@benthemiester I myself predicted Ida -as I explained in the video, 'Ida Know', and she was exactly what I [and paleoprimatologists around the world] predicted, was she not?
@benthemiester Do I believe that the modern synthesis is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity? That it is the only option with valuable practical application because of its verifiable accuracy? Of course I do.
Does the modern synthesis explain absolutely every relevant aspect of biology? Not yet, but we're obviously on the right track. Does any other would-be contender explain anything at all with any measurable accuracy? No.
@AronRa U have changed my mind, in fact, I think u should leave the video posted. The Ida missing link debacle didn't work, & now your trying to make it into an important transitional fossil regardless, when u have nothing but priori assumptions to base this on. U tried to bullshit me and said u made a prediction on your "Ida Knows video" about Ida not being a missing link. Vid was posted 2 DAYS after it was already reported in the media. That's not a prediction. That's being dishonest.
@benthemiester You implied that Ida did not fulfill the role predicted, and I showed you a video I made which explained that prediction. Maybe that video was made two days after someone else commented on Ida, I don't know. But that video talked about a prediction I illustrated months earlier than that. Since my prediction -and that of paleoanthropologists- was always correct regarding Ida's true value as a transition, and this video was vindicated, then why did you say it should be deleted?
@AronRa Your so called prediction was made 2 days after it was announced to the media. I don't call that a prediction. I call it reporting something that the media reported two days before. If someone on the opposing side used that line, you would have made a video about how sneaky and conniving they were. You also cite Behe as a creationist, when he believes in common descent. Its called evolution. As I said before, he just feels there is little evidence for an unguided process.
@benthemiester The video you say came two days late referred to a prediction illustrated months earlier. My prediction was vindicated, and I explained that again here. So why did you suggest this video should be taken down?
@AronRa You made the video 2 days after it was announced to the public that Ida was a dud. The date is posted on that video for all to see, and that is why you didn't thread me from that post but instead threaded me from this one. I already told you to go ahead and leave them up there. I think people should know about this so called prediction you made two days after it was already announced to public.
@benthemiester You say you want other people to know about the prediction I made, but you obviously you don't know what it was yourself, nor how it was vindicated. Ida wasn't announced to be a 'dud', she was proven to be exactly what I predicted she would be months before that announcement.
@benthemiester he never said it was dud. he explained specificaly that it was link in primape evolution between wet nose primapes and dry nose primapes. aka, between lemurs and monkeys. he never said that it was dud, but that its not "the missing link" between humans and other apes. but it was link between wet nose primapes and monkeys.
@benthemiester Casey Luskin told me once that he accepted evolution too. Then he went on to explain how he didn't really accept evolution at all. Behe did the same thing. That's why he testified against evolution on trial -and why he participated on the creationists' side of the collective anti-evolution debates a couple years before that trial even took place.
And let me be clear, I don't dispute evolution as defined by change over time. I think that Darwinism should be taught in schools & I believe ID should have to prove itself to science just like all new & especially controversial scientific theories do. This sometimes can take decades and only time will tell. My objection is to macro evolution in its original terminology, not the revised version which again is based on priori assumptions.The modern synthesis is insufficient. New paradigm needed.
Sorry sir but you are incorect ..From evolution friendly Wiki (Origin of the term)
Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration) first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation"........
CONT.....Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.[5]
Most skeptics of the modern synthesis do not except the modern revision of the term transitional. They accept the original term as proposed by Darwin. The revised definition makes transitional fossil arguments non falsifiable and presumes all extinct and extant animals are transitions on micro & macro scales. The same can be said of the term Macro evolution which is also a term revised from its original meaning and which also makes it non falsifiable. He who writes the rules always wins,
@benthemiester Neither definition has changed. What creationists demand has always been an evolutionary impossibility even from Darwin's 19th century perspective.
Arona u should delete this video. This is what evo friendly wiki has to say about Ida
Concerns have been raised about the claims made about the fossil's relative importance, and the publicizing of the fossil before adequate information was available for scrutiny by the academic community.[4]
These guys are so easy to uncover & when I say these guys I don't mean evolutionist, I mean anyone, including Christians that don't even understand the theory they support.
@AronRa Great question. Ill try to answer when I have some time. By the way, in spite of my my smart assyness, if there is such a word. I do enjoy you mixing this up with a little humor, and you are original, Ill give you that. To much on plate right now . Talk to you in a while.
@AronRa Simple put Arona. There is just no way of knowing whether this animal was related to man, ancestral to man or whether it belongs to anything that diverged into the human family. It might have been advertised as a significant find concerning the human lineage but there is no real proof of this. U have to rely on priori assumptions. Piltdown man was still being taught as a transitional fossil in my elementary school book twenty years after it was discovered to be a hoax. BS days over.
is this a joke ? at about 33 the narrator says why would ida be falsified ? well im sure if you look back in time and take a good look at the number of FALSE claims and fossils , or out right manipulation of fossils , you will notice afew [ missing links ] that have been false ,,, pilt down man , ocre man , java man ,,, ect ect ,,, so why would this be any different ? ,,, i guess well see in time wheither the verdict changes on what ida was and becomes LOL
Wait, I'm confused. In that video you put Ida at the base of Haplorhini and Strepsirhini. I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a basal form of the two?
I put Ida at the base because she is obviously basal -being that she precedes Haplorhini and is a link between that set and Strepsirhini. There is nowhere else to put her.
Basal to, meaning prior to the crown of Haplorhini and closely though not directly related. Ida would be seen as the sister of our ancestor and mother of the first Strepsirhine. That's just an analogy of course.
its good that you realize that creationists are ahead of the curve due primarily to their more accurate world view.
Creatures rarely show any change....its called morphological stasis.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry is always happening somewhere else. we never observed it, the fossil record predominantly skipped it, time will never allow us to see it in the future, no aliens to confirm its happening elsewhere....
But its a proven fact?...sorry i require empirical evidence.
could u explain y under the evolutionary/common ancestry theory that opposite sex organs evolved?
"Why have one like all the other animals?"
good question. y dont they have the ability to reproduce without having sex like their ancestors did?
it seems there was a dramatic shift from that to requiring fertilization thru sex. Now if evolution is true and we follow all other animals then y did we change the pattern?
Firstly,could you provide the names of the scientists who disagree with AronRa?
Secondly,could you provide the evidence that they are smarter than him as stated. IQ tests or some other objective comparitive measure of intelligence would suffice.
Thirdly,are you saying that people who speak quickly are conmen? I assume you include all fast talkers like Kent Hovind,Ray Comfort, Peter Popoff etc? Or are you perhaps just making another baseless assumption.
but that is how science seems to work. There is massive peer pressure to stay with the consensus view & ridicule & intolerance are heaped upon those who dare to have a different view.
the foolishness of your point is shown in that Michael Behe accepts common ancestry & evolution & belinski has no opinion on what happened only that darwinian theory is flawed.
So arsjth, looks like you're the next fool of crap creationist I get to use facts and logic against.
Your use of scientific history, of those minorities being laughed at and then shown to be correct, overlooks one major thing. That happened to evolution theory! Back in the days of Darwin, scientists mostly believed in creationism. Now, having been through the rigorous peer review any workable theory must experience (and ID/creationism CAN'T!), it is accepted as fact by most scientists.
JorickW89 "looks like you're the next fool of crap creationist I get to use facts and logic against."
Looks more like u r typical of the arrogant abusive atheist 'science is perfect' crowd.
As we know scientists fudge data (climategate) when it suits their predetermined agenda. We know they are vindictive hateful people who rejoice in the death of their opponents.
Darwin is so outdated as to be laughable. the real world has moved on from darwin to the next theory of evolution.
First, I never claimed science was perfect. That's what creationists do with their god idea.
Second, climategate? You've got to be utterly ignorant of the actual facts to bring that up. They used observed data instead of faulty data, nothing more.
Third, LOL @ the hatefulness. Don't you religious folks think nonbelievers (your opponents) suffer eternal agony? That's hateful for you.
Finally, Darwin's idea (natural selection) is the base of evolution, so it's not at all outdated.
According2 Chen, the2 main forces of evolution espoused by neo-Darwinism, natural selection (survival of the fittest) & random genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many complex genetic forms.
The place2 find steps2 Cambrian animals, of course, should b among th Precambrian rocks.Darwin wrote that, if his theory is true,then th world must hav been swarming w th ancestors of th Cambrian critters during long ages before them.He expected future generations to find them
Er... what? I never said that the Theory of Evolution was perfect. You do, however, seem to assume that I said as such.
Funnily enough, Einstein wasn't one of those who was laughed at, because in his day we had the Scientific Method and people weren't burned to death for going against Scripture.
The bishops have teamed up with the scientific elite before. It was against Galileo and copernicus who thought the earth was not the centre of the universe and the earth revolved around the sun.
They didnt like ideas going against the consensus at all.
Why would u use bishops as some sort of scientific authority on our beginnings and the design of life?
strange to use someone u consider deluded as part of your argument. i guess u will use anyone for your benefit. that is the darwinian way.
no true. i can think evolution is possible, i just cant be convinced of it by the evidence.
U have 1001 excuses why there r few gradual transformations in the fossil record, y it reveals stasis as the norm, y we see no creatures resembling their supposed ancestor. but we dont see much evidence.its presumed2b true & alternatives r dismissed due2lack of proof despite the lack in GTE.just because creatures change doesnt mean that they were once 1 single protein that came2life from an explosion!
sorry mate the big bang was an explosion and no life existed before it. so the explosion is the causal event of life starting.
Once u start believing evolution the evidence for what u believe mounts up. just as once u believe creation the evidence mounts up.
lets face it...no one observed it, no one can repeat it, no one can provide empirical proof that it happened so it is all circumstantial based on peoples beliefs in probability.
To me its improbable that humans evolved from fish
The big bang is (possibly, not for sure) the causal event to existence, not life. Life didn't start till billions of years later. It's only a cause of life in the way that life could not exist if there were no existence.
Anyway, as I stated before, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life or the universe. It only says that living things reproduce with variation, and that over long periods of time this causes speciation. So get it right next time, eh?
No it didn't. The biggest theory right now about the origins of life on Earth is abiogenesis. Look it up.
That "microbial soup" did now become humans. It became amino acids, which became some other kind of chemicals... I don't know the exact order in which things happened.
Er... we hide behind that excuse because that is what evolution means by definition. It does not deal with the origin of life and thus has nothing to do with it. It deals with the diversity of life, nothing more.
Funny thing is, just because I don't know doesn't mean we have a fair understanding of it. Scientists do have a fairly good grasp about how life came from basic amino acids once those formed.
And no, the speed of light has not been slowing down.
If it is, provide your proof and explain why it would be.
@maslab "Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe.1"
Davies, P.C.W., Davis, T.M. and Lineweaver, C.H., Black holes constrain varying constants, Nature 418(6898):602603, 8 August 2002.
if stars r really well over 6000 light years away, how could light have had time to travel from them to Earth? Two logically possible answers have serious problems:
God created the starlight on its way: this suffers grievously from the fact that starlight also carries information about distant cosmic events. The created-in-transit theory means that the information would be phony, recording events which never happened, hence deceptive.
The distances are deceptive: but despite some anomalies...
dont look at what is actually being discovered. dont contemplate that the generally accepted view maybe wrong. u wil fit in2 the scientific hierarchy perfectly. ofc u will never discover anything new but u will hav that warm feeling of acceptance by ur peers.After all peer approval is what its all abt.
it may wel b much older than 6000 yrs but it also may not b the generally accepted billions of yrs old either.
...in redshift/distance correlations (see Galaxy-Quasar Connection Defies Explanation), its just not possible for all stars and galaxies to be within a 6000-light-year radius—we would all fry!
But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.
@maslab "intriguingly, it now turns out that the fine-structure constant is in fact slightly different in light from distant stars compared to nearby ones. In fact, this is the very reason that physicists of the stature of Davies are now prepared to challenge the assumption that light speed has always been constant."
Scientists have no idea about how life came from basic amino acids either.
Its all speculation that u have bought hook line & sinker without the slightest molecule of proof.
No, I'm not hiding from what I believe. I'm telling you what I believe: that evolution is what evolution actually is, not what creationists like to define it as. I don't know how life started, and it is irrelevant to evolution.
Furthermore, it's a blatant lie to say creationists accept evolution as true. They say that their deity created everything as it says in so-and-so holy book. And all of them say "everything was created to be as it is now." Quit using bullshit definitions, please.
It was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space and time. Learn what it actually is.
And evolution has been observed. Type in "observed instances of speciation" in to google and you can find at least twenty observed and documented times in which one species evolved in to another.
i keep repeating that even creationists believe that evolution happens by natural selection. That doesnt infer that all life came from an original single cell nor that whales used to be wolf like creatures nor that creatures without wings grew wings because they thought they might need them some day and in the mean time nubs were really useful for escaping from predators.
Sometimes it takes courage to say 'we just dont know' its more scientifically honest as well.
@arsjth, your comment on wings is actually not accurate, so let me point you towards the truth: wings did not evolve from stubs in the shoulders of animals. A grade-schooler could tell you that wings are actually the arms of birds, and were originally derived from flaps of skin.
No, they don't grow to the coding in their genes. Evolution occurs as a result of environmental attrition to which a species adapts. Genes just make that individual.
Production of new genetic material is fairly simple. Start with two letters AA. Then a mutation occurs and makes it AB. Another mutation occurs that copies one bit and makes it ABB.
The manx is an eg of loss of genetic information not creation of new genetic info.
what is A &what is B? do they represent anything?
a better analogy might be aabbaa going to aabba where loss of a = loss of tail.
i would like to c where a species with no tail starts to grow tails. although i believe th coding 4 tails is in th genes & is switched on or off depending on what is required. a default in this process can sometime result in that happening, as in chicken w teeth.coding is there
"Have u got an example of A changing to to B that can be conclusively proven to be genetic material that wasnt there b4? "
That's what you asked for. You didn't ask for NEW genetic information.
If you want that, merely look up "observed instances of speciation" in google to find at least 20 times in which humans observed one species becoming another. There is also the matter of the eye and other sensory organs.
Because that's where new traits are most commonly seen...
Ever heard of a mule? A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62. A mule has 63. You might say that's just a decrease for a horse, but you still have to admit that it's an increase from the donkey.
How do you know it hasn't happened again? The common theory is that, oh, gee, maybe the Earth is not like it was billions of years ago?
No. A creature is a makeup of its ancestry. You do not grow out of that. Ever.
Yes, I am aware. I also know that that claim is bullshit. What it simply means is that biologists now have to rethink how long ago the Tetrapods first existed. It by no means changes the fact that species change over time due to environmental attrition.
PZ Myers explained why in one of his blog posts. I'll send you the link in a PM.
" It by no means changes the fact that species change over time due to environmental attrition."
it is fascinating.
these things were established proven facts last week. now we have evidence that tiktaalik was not the creature that left the water for the land. That is the true BS. scientists said it was...drew pretty pictures to demonstrate how it left the water, but it didnt.
not sure u get it. everything u have been taught & swallowed about the tetrapod evolution is 'crap'.
oh i see, you are not influenced by your peer group.
also when you were being taught evolution at school you had a critical mind towards it and said 'i want proof before i believe this!'
no u were like every other kid who swallowed what the teacher told u.
They say it fits so u believe it fits. They tell u y it fits & u accept it from the authority figure. The bias of texts is obvious no evidence of any contrary ideas trying to prove science wrong (as they always say they are doing). lol.
I'm an atheist. I grew up in a Jewish household. Most of my friends are Christian, and one of them is a Creationist!
So you do NOT get to tell me when I am open-minded or not.
Evolution made sense when I first learned about it. I actually kind of giggled when I first heard of it. But over the years the evidence I've seen has convinced me that evolution does occur, and that the world is more than 4 billion years old.
That's it. You are officially a troll. I know I'm bad at detecting these things, and I've just been feeding you, but your post is so full of shit it's not even worth pissing on anymore.
this is so typical of those atheists who believe their views are backed up by science yet they run away cursing those who dare to stand up against them.
Your language reveals your inner anger....strange from some1 who has truth on his side.
If some1argues about gravity w me....i dont get angry and call them a troll. I just simply talk of the science & how its proved & ask him to test it for himself.
"I have friends that are Gay but that doesnt mean that i am open to being gay. I am not open minded to the possibility that it should be taught as an alternative lifestyle to children either."
I'm sorry, what?
Dude, do you think the average male would have gay sex even IF it were socially acceptable? No! You act like homosexuality is some incredibly appealing temptation we all have to fight tooth and nail to resist. It doesn't work like that. At all.
what i am hearing is that no matter what the evidence is or how many times it is diecredited we will not change our thinking on evolution.
this is because it was excepted as a fact before the evidence was in place. as darwin said the lack of transitional fossils would destroy his theory.
no fossils? so we make them up. the tetrapod line was presented as the most sure & best evidence. but it was made up. no proof. when u go away from empirical evidence u wil get caught out regularly.
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, there was relatively little evidence in the fossil record of evolutionary change. Darwin spent two chapters of his book apologising for the paucity of the fossil record, but predicted that it would eventually support his ideas.
one was found 2 yrs later?
considering all creation evolved from one cell..there should be a virtually unbroken smooth transition from 1 phyla2the next from 1 species to the next, shouldnt there?
evolution is a fact. this just means that things change. natural selection acts on existing traits and selects for them based on whether it causes then to survive or not.
whether this can ultimately create limitless changes and create previously non-existing limbs&organs is debatable.
all we would need was some solid evidence that it happens.
what would i consider solid? observation of it happening. eg something in the process of changing because it has been doing it4 billions of yrs.
Type in "observed instances of speciation" in to google. You'll find many examples of scientists directly observing one species evolving in to another.
So you're saying that you need conclusive proof of one species developing in to something else, and one species becoming another doesn't fit?
Give me a fucking break.
I honestly don't know whether the creation of new DNA has actually occurred. I am by no means in a position to test if it has.
We are not created by little bits of our DNA acting independently, but the sum of all our DNA acting to create something complex. Change one thing, you change the creature.
That bird makes me so happy.
Kintarius 1 month ago
LMAO... Ida's foot isn't the same size as the human's foot, oh my! Evidently GEERUP must believe we all wear the same size shoes.
HotblackDesiat042 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually the 'i' in 'Ida' is pronounced the way you pronounce 'i' in 'India'. Ida is a Scandinavian female name. Not that it's a big deal, or that anyone in the USA should be aware of this. Just mentioning.
topperheartramada 4 months ago
Geerup's sheer idiocy shows through as every word out of his mouth is sheer retardation.
PsychoticSnake 4 months ago
Geerup: I hate evidence!
AronRa: But you like magic?
Geerup: Screw you! I can make my own evidence! Meanie!
AronRa: No, that would be dishonest.
Geerup: You're a jerk! Atheists are all out to get me and turn me into a Godless Heathen!
AronRa: Wrong again, Bob!
(Aron proceeds to dismantle and embarrass Geerup in front of all his friends)
Geerup: Well... Well... Um, There is a conspiracy!
(Geerup rocks back and forth in the corner crying and muttering to himself)
Amaziiinngg Graaccce.....*sob.*
xJoeEDangerouslyx 5 months ago
On May 19, 2009, the team revealed their findings to the world at a press conference, simultaneously with online publication of the paper in PLoS ONE (for naming purposes, the paper was officially published in print on May 21, 2009). The paper included a statement that the authors were not advocating the possibility that the species could be ancestral to later anthropoid primates. Wikipedia and sourced......
benthemiester 5 months ago
cont....."Ida," a "missing link" found in Germany, is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate and is being hailed by some as a milestone in human evolution" It seems IDA did not meet the challenge & yet must still must go through ever changing goal post. And you are wrong. It was actually the press release that came months before you posted video.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Show me the press release. Ida obviously did meet the challenge, as I explained in this video, by citing the goal post which was anchored firmly in place in the previous video. Why do you have so much vitriol when you're apparently wrong about everything you claim or believe? Or have I just answered my own question?
AronRa 5 months ago 6
@AronRa If I may be so bold as to answer a question directed at someone else, I suspect the answer to your question, Aron, is that "benthemiester" has an over-sized amygdala.
mrcoffey 6 days ago
5:45 --- Now, I'm hooked. @GEERUP's dependence on a gradual change in physical traits shows a tunnel-vision. We are beyond that.
icedbreaks 5 months ago
What is the reference I have seen AronRa use in a couple of videos, here beginning at 4:45 ?
icedbreaks 5 months ago
Ahhh yeah and i know were the tail is. At least were his tail is. Inside his ass, but he will never find it
Atrofia2 7 months ago
How can this people handle been proved wrong again and again and again in the same video. They have no shame. this is almost disgusting, is like that 2 girls one cup video.
Atrofia2 7 months ago
I though Aron ate the parrot four videos ago. Nice to know the bird is fine
Atrofia2 7 months ago
I think creationists equate Atheists with Satanists. Silly mindless zealots.
schizotypalgrasp 8 months ago
I, too, have the sudden, inexplicable urge to snap into a Slim Jim.
GoblinXXX 10 months ago
Cute birdy! :D
TheBlackSpider82 1 year ago
Thumbs up for that little sun conure being a good sport.
Boy192 1 year ago 2
@Boy192 I think the little guy pretty much lives on AronRa's shoulder.
GoblinXXX 10 months ago
How the hell did I miss this?
Standing in my chair applauding!! Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!
pumpstations 1 year ago
5:08-5:43
Oh my god...
Did you realize what he said?
GEERUP understands what evolution is. a change over time
and he understands why it is dumb to ask for a single "missing link" between "humans and monkeys"
Now if only his mind wasn't blocked off by dogma to really get it...
RazielKain 1 year ago
Excellent pawnage by pointing out the Manx to disprove Geerup's claim.
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
AronRa, do you do the voice of Hank Hill?
HslipknotU 1 year ago
has anyone noticed how no creationists really ever rebute any of these kinds of videos (am i wrong? i just don't recall ever seeing any)
MrReasonFTW 1 year ago
aron your bird is probably smarter than geerup lol
2ooPnYz 1 year ago
4:02- BOINGY BOINGY BOINGY!
Man, Lemurs are awesome.
Omnywrench 1 year ago
in my defense i was tired when i watched this but i thought AronRa was talking into a golf club aside from that great video and with that great and funny video
SyCoeSis 1 year ago
He even looks and sounds like a Paleontologist. I met Robert Bakker once and they have the same vibe.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
absolute best part is when he bashes on the size of the feet, absoluety hilarious how stupid that is
managarm1349 1 year ago
OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAH!!!!
SecundiniusSineDei 1 year ago
I saw your so called prediction from the video you cited and looked at the date. You made the video after it was discovered that Ida was not what the scientist claimed it to be. That's not a prediction. That is a statement after the fact, and in this video your still trying to to make a case for Ida. You seem to be all over the place with this one.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester My post is the first one I know of addressing this matter in the way that I did. Still -you said Ida was a failed prediction, but I showed that I had already made exactly that prediction months earlier with the original release of my 'monkey video'. So how was my vindicated prediction wrong?
AronRa 1 year ago
You couldn't answer any of my simple & fair questions and now you want to quibble about revised definitions that you said didn't exist. I told you why you were wrong about Ida and you have nothing to refute it. Again where are all the paleontologist who believe Ida was apart of the human family as first advertised? There is an old saying Arona, it goes something like this, "don't let your mouth write a check that your ass cant cash" It seems u not only wrote a check but posted a video also.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I did answer your questions. But you've still never told me why you think I'm wrong. I'm clearly not wrong, and I can even show you that I had already refuted your argument several months before you made it.
AronRa 1 year ago
i think GEERUP is on drugs
rastarigate 1 year ago
I believe if I am not mistaken and according to your threads below that your original point was that these terms have never been revised. I have demonstrated that you were incorrect.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You have not shown that the meaning of ‘macroevolution’ which I apply today is not the same meaning as was applied originally. But you’re welcome to cite both definitions if you still think you can prove your point, and compare them to mine.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa You also said I never answered why you should take down down video when I clearly did, and if you look at my threads you will see that I did. Then after you said that, you go on to say you refuted my arguments months before I said it. How can you refute my argument when you claim I never offered argument? Again I do enjoy the humor in your videos.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You never did explain why I should delete this video. You obviously misunderstood my point in this video as in previous ones, but now that you know better, why are you still arguing that I should delete it? Why?
AronRa 1 year ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Then let me clarify; the meaning of that term today does not conflict with any prior meaning. It can be revised, refined, or made more precise without being changed so that it no longer means any of the same things that it used to.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa Your playing a word game about definitions. I am not a gullible kid, and I choose my words carefully. Your first statement was that it hasn't been revised, and when I gave you evidence that it was, & u changed goal post. This is really not pertinent to the original statement. The fact is that every article written about Ida has now done a 180 degree turn from the original claim. Everyone in the field of paleontology understands this. Where are all the scholarly Ida supporters now?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I said the meaning of the word has not changed, and it hasn’t. The meaning I apply now applied in its original context too. As I already demonstrated in my video, Ida Know from last year, the 180 degree turn you’re talking about didn’t happen. A very few scientists and press had over sensationalized and misrpresented this find, and I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to post a correction to that, and the scientific community proved to side with me on that.
AronRa 1 year ago
@benthemiester Answer the question that you keep ignoring every time I ask it: Now that you’ve seen –and even explained by example- how a transitional species could be falsified, why do you say it can not be? And why do you say I should delete this video?
AronRa 1 year ago
@benthemiester My point is that the term, 'transitional' is falsifiable despite your claim that it is not. Now once again I ask, why do you think I should delete this video?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa Its not my claim, it is the modern version and definition that makes it non falsifiable just by the way the modern term is defined itself. If any living animal is a transitional according to revise definition then how do you falsify this? As for my answer, it has already been given. I kept it simple. Please look at threads. Please tell me why so many in the scientific community disagree with this human missing link myth, What evidence do you have that is not based on prior assumptions?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@AronRa I really don't know how you personable apply the meaning. I don't really like to get into Simon says Simon didn't say arguments. I'm speaking of molecule to man. You can add or take away any definitions you choose to except. I'm a straight talker not a debate strategist and don't need it to be. We can argue about micro & macro all day but the point is Ida is another failed prediction. Arona do you believe the modern synthesis is sufficient as taught to us for the last 70 years?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I myself predicted Ida -as I explained in the video, 'Ida Know', and she was exactly what I [and paleoprimatologists around the world] predicted, was she not?
AronRa 1 year ago
@benthemiester Do I believe that the modern synthesis is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity? That it is the only option with valuable practical application because of its verifiable accuracy? Of course I do.
Does the modern synthesis explain absolutely every relevant aspect of biology? Not yet, but we're obviously on the right track. Does any other would-be contender explain anything at all with any measurable accuracy? No.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa U have changed my mind, in fact, I think u should leave the video posted. The Ida missing link debacle didn't work, & now your trying to make it into an important transitional fossil regardless, when u have nothing but priori assumptions to base this on. U tried to bullshit me and said u made a prediction on your "Ida Knows video" about Ida not being a missing link. Vid was posted 2 DAYS after it was already reported in the media. That's not a prediction. That's being dishonest.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You implied that Ida did not fulfill the role predicted, and I showed you a video I made which explained that prediction. Maybe that video was made two days after someone else commented on Ida, I don't know. But that video talked about a prediction I illustrated months earlier than that. Since my prediction -and that of paleoanthropologists- was always correct regarding Ida's true value as a transition, and this video was vindicated, then why did you say it should be deleted?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa Your so called prediction was made 2 days after it was announced to the media. I don't call that a prediction. I call it reporting something that the media reported two days before. If someone on the opposing side used that line, you would have made a video about how sneaky and conniving they were. You also cite Behe as a creationist, when he believes in common descent. Its called evolution. As I said before, he just feels there is little evidence for an unguided process.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The video you say came two days late referred to a prediction illustrated months earlier. My prediction was vindicated, and I explained that again here. So why did you suggest this video should be taken down?
AronRa 1 year ago 6
@AronRa You made the video 2 days after it was announced to the public that Ida was a dud. The date is posted on that video for all to see, and that is why you didn't thread me from that post but instead threaded me from this one. I already told you to go ahead and leave them up there. I think people should know about this so called prediction you made two days after it was already announced to public.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You say you want other people to know about the prediction I made, but you obviously you don't know what it was yourself, nor how it was vindicated. Ida wasn't announced to be a 'dud', she was proven to be exactly what I predicted she would be months before that announcement.
AronRa 1 year ago 21
@benthemiester he never said it was dud. he explained specificaly that it was link in primape evolution between wet nose primapes and dry nose primapes. aka, between lemurs and monkeys. he never said that it was dud, but that its not "the missing link" between humans and other apes. but it was link between wet nose primapes and monkeys.
gethsoftware 2 months ago
@benthemiester Casey Luskin told me once that he accepted evolution too. Then he went on to explain how he didn't really accept evolution at all. Behe did the same thing. That's why he testified against evolution on trial -and why he participated on the creationists' side of the collective anti-evolution debates a couple years before that trial even took place.
AronRa 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa "he participated on the creationists' side of the collective anti-evolution debates a couple years before that trial even took place"
Are you speaking of the debate with Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Berlinski, and Phillip Johnson??
benthemiester 1 year ago
And let me be clear, I don't dispute evolution as defined by change over time. I think that Darwinism should be taught in schools & I believe ID should have to prove itself to science just like all new & especially controversial scientific theories do. This sometimes can take decades and only time will tell. My objection is to macro evolution in its original terminology, not the revised version which again is based on priori assumptions.The modern synthesis is insufficient. New paradigm needed.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Sorry sir but you are incorect ..From evolution friendly Wiki (Origin of the term)
Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration) first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation"........
benthemiester 1 year ago
CONT.....Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.[5]
benthemiester 1 year ago
Most skeptics of the modern synthesis do not except the modern revision of the term transitional. They accept the original term as proposed by Darwin. The revised definition makes transitional fossil arguments non falsifiable and presumes all extinct and extant animals are transitions on micro & macro scales. The same can be said of the term Macro evolution which is also a term revised from its original meaning and which also makes it non falsifiable. He who writes the rules always wins,
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Neither definition has changed. What creationists demand has always been an evolutionary impossibility even from Darwin's 19th century perspective.
AronRa 1 year ago 2
I have heard of a monkey on your back, but a monkey with a bird on his shoulder....now that's a twist.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Arona u should delete this video. This is what evo friendly wiki has to say about Ida
Concerns have been raised about the claims made about the fossil's relative importance, and the publicizing of the fossil before adequate information was available for scrutiny by the academic community.[4]
These guys are so easy to uncover & when I say these guys I don't mean evolutionist, I mean anyone, including Christians that don't even understand the theory they support.
Another failed prediction.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Why do you think I should delete this video?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa Great question. Ill try to answer when I have some time. By the way, in spite of my my smart assyness, if there is such a word. I do enjoy you mixing this up with a little humor, and you are original, Ill give you that. To much on plate right now . Talk to you in a while.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@AronRa Simple put Arona. There is just no way of knowing whether this animal was related to man, ancestral to man or whether it belongs to anything that diverged into the human family. It might have been advertised as a significant find concerning the human lineage but there is no real proof of this. U have to rely on priori assumptions. Piltdown man was still being taught as a transitional fossil in my elementary school book twenty years after it was discovered to be a hoax. BS days over.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Aron Ra = Hero!
See the song I made about him on my channel - click my name (it's the featured one)
PatRibsey 1 year ago
is this a joke ? at about 33 the narrator says why would ida be falsified ? well im sure if you look back in time and take a good look at the number of FALSE claims and fossils , or out right manipulation of fossils , you will notice afew [ missing links ] that have been false ,,, pilt down man , ocre man , java man ,,, ect ect ,,, so why would this be any different ? ,,, i guess well see in time wheither the verdict changes on what ida was and becomes LOL
lesterclaypool1 1 year ago
Aronra is awesome
geerup is a fucking idiot !!!
RealTimeMarch19 1 year ago
Hahaha.. You got to love the parrot.
Muthsera80 1 year ago
so sablechicken...who believes the bible is the word of god...dresses up like a man...which is considered a blasphemy according to the bible.
gotta love the fucktards :)
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago 3
The Creationoid's modus operandi when it comes to all the evidence that directly contradicts their fairy tales of magical hocus pocus:
"Deny It to the End; then deny It once again."
I have no problems embracing new ideas that are indicated by evidence.
psycotria 1 year ago
Super Deluxe!
psycotria 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AronRa says: "Ida Met The Challenge"...
Headline: Science Daily March 3, 2010
'Missing Link' (Ida/Darwinius Masillae) Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor As Claimed, Anthropologists Say
2222554 1 year ago
In the video, 'Ida Know' AronRa said:
"Darwinius Masillae Was Not Human Ancestor".
Weeks later, the rest of the scientific community agreed.
AronRa 1 year ago
Wait, I'm confused. In that video you put Ida at the base of Haplorhini and Strepsirhini. I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a basal form of the two?
Raptor302 1 year ago
I put Ida at the base because she is obviously basal -being that she precedes Haplorhini and is a link between that set and Strepsirhini. There is nowhere else to put her.
AronRa 1 year ago
If she was a basal of the two, wouldn't that put her as our ancestor?
Not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand the layout.
Raptor302 1 year ago
Basal to, meaning prior to the crown of Haplorhini and closely though not directly related. Ida would be seen as the sister of our ancestor and mother of the first Strepsirhine. That's just an analogy of course.
AronRa 1 year ago
Ok, thanks.
Raptor302 1 year ago
@AronRa
way before AronRa said it...creationists and Intelligent design advocates said it.
loonies like David Attenborough were claiming that it would reshape science as we know it and that the missing link had been found.
clearly he didnt even read the paper and therefore went entirely on the media hype.
Surely this is representative of how the popularizers of evolution work.!!
The plebs then only remember that they found the missing link. They dont read up on the fact that it was nonsense
arsjth 1 year ago
@AronRa
its good that you realize that creationists are ahead of the curve due primarily to their more accurate world view.
Creatures rarely show any change....its called morphological stasis.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry is always happening somewhere else. we never observed it, the fossil record predominantly skipped it, time will never allow us to see it in the future, no aliens to confirm its happening elsewhere....
But its a proven fact?...sorry i require empirical evidence.
arsjth 1 year ago
I love your bird.
notabook 1 year ago
Sounds like developing on IMVU.Deriving from a creator's template and developing.OK hold up snap no more tail?...O.o
20lbsledge 1 year ago
Well they say imitation is the highest form of flattery.
whydid666 2 years ago
"Impossible and improbable."
We can learn a lot about people's psychology from the words we use in between our speaking-points.
WickeDFate4 2 years ago
God damn it, now I have to go get a slim jim... AGAIN.
generaleskimo 2 years ago
@elmoTOTHEMAX
no she is a just a lemur
arsjth 2 years ago
Those eyebrows are fucking amazing.
masterdirk101 2 years ago
Dude, you are a boss
DopeIndustries 2 years ago
AronRa has a little dinosaur looking thing on his shoulder.
KaiksKan 2 years ago
You mean his fucking parot? dumbass.
mooimaplatapus 2 years ago
Is the parrot really fucking AronRa? Doesn't look like either of them are very excited, perhaps you see what you want to see.
KaiksKan 2 years ago
Werewolf thing?
Craydon 2 years ago
saw a clip of this on peach`s vid. excellent stuff. subbed. 5*****
peteq1972 2 years ago
Great video.
ElliotWoolf 2 years ago
dude, there's a parrot on your shoulder
metalebd 2 years ago
Fantastic video. I really do envy Aron's articulative capabilities.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
macaque monkeys have variations of tailless and tailed. Even in the same forest regions.
I wish the creationist would dismiss the penis and vagina. Why have one in the first place. Why have one like all the other animals.
aBRUSHforCONFUCIUS 2 years ago
aBRUSHforCONFUCIUS
lol.
very good question. y have a penis & a vagina?
could u explain y under the evolutionary/common ancestry theory that opposite sex organs evolved?
"Why have one like all the other animals?"
good question. y dont they have the ability to reproduce without having sex like their ancestors did?
it seems there was a dramatic shift from that to requiring fertilization thru sex. Now if evolution is true and we follow all other animals then y did we change the pattern?
arsjth 2 years ago
no reply from you aBrushfor confucious?
a theory that is solidly proven should be able to answer these questions fairly easily.
regards
arsjth 2 years ago
Great vid.
shagster1970 2 years ago
AronRa.
Thanks again for these videos, I think I have watched them all now a couple times and each time I learn and retain more.
I wish academic mastery was more important to me in my youth. Now I am 35 and craving Bio Chemistry courses.
Thanks for being my first "virtual" prof.
Much respect
Ian
Demaestr0 2 years ago
AronRa is on the fuckin money.
witty, intelligent, and most important of all, right.
theeader 2 years ago
plenty of scientists smarter than AaronRa who disagree with him.
Its just that you agree with him.
fast talking is not convincing. its a trick of conmen.
arsjth 2 years ago
So, you have made a few statements above:
Firstly,could you provide the names of the scientists who disagree with AronRa?
Secondly,could you provide the evidence that they are smarter than him as stated. IQ tests or some other objective comparitive measure of intelligence would suffice.
Thirdly,are you saying that people who speak quickly are conmen? I assume you include all fast talkers like Kent Hovind,Ray Comfort, Peter Popoff etc? Or are you perhaps just making another baseless assumption.
threeholerhauler 2 years ago
Stephen Meyer
David Berlinski
Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist & intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.
Dr Pierre Jerlström
Dr John Hartnett
Jonathon Wells PhD in Molecular & Cell Biology from UC Berkeley.
the list goes on. 600 scientists signed a dissent from darwinism statement.
Unless AronRa comes clean on his having tenure at a Major University's Biology dept we can assume he is just another guy w a degree.
arsjth 2 years ago
@arsjth
And yet, thousands, tens of thousands, if not millions, of scientists laugh at them. Even a bunch of bishops do.
Hmmm...
maslab 2 years ago
and?
they laughed at galileo and einstein too.
yet they were shown to be very wise.
but that is how science seems to work. There is massive peer pressure to stay with the consensus view & ridicule & intolerance are heaped upon those who dare to have a different view.
the foolishness of your point is shown in that Michael Behe accepts common ancestry & evolution & belinski has no opinion on what happened only that darwinian theory is flawed.
So who is laughing? only the arrogant!
arsjth 2 years ago
So arsjth, looks like you're the next fool of crap creationist I get to use facts and logic against.
Your use of scientific history, of those minorities being laughed at and then shown to be correct, overlooks one major thing. That happened to evolution theory! Back in the days of Darwin, scientists mostly believed in creationism. Now, having been through the rigorous peer review any workable theory must experience (and ID/creationism CAN'T!), it is accepted as fact by most scientists.
JorickW89 2 years ago
JorickW89 "looks like you're the next fool of crap creationist I get to use facts and logic against."
Looks more like u r typical of the arrogant abusive atheist 'science is perfect' crowd.
As we know scientists fudge data (climategate) when it suits their predetermined agenda. We know they are vindictive hateful people who rejoice in the death of their opponents.
Darwin is so outdated as to be laughable. the real world has moved on from darwin to the next theory of evolution.
arsjth 2 years ago
@arsjth
First, I never claimed science was perfect. That's what creationists do with their god idea.
Second, climategate? You've got to be utterly ignorant of the actual facts to bring that up. They used observed data instead of faulty data, nothing more.
Third, LOL @ the hatefulness. Don't you religious folks think nonbelievers (your opponents) suffer eternal agony? That's hateful for you.
Finally, Darwin's idea (natural selection) is the base of evolution, so it's not at all outdated.
JorickW89 2 years ago
According2 Chen, the2 main forces of evolution espoused by neo-Darwinism, natural selection (survival of the fittest) & random genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many complex genetic forms.
The place2 find steps2 Cambrian animals, of course, should b among th Precambrian rocks.Darwin wrote that, if his theory is true,then th world must hav been swarming w th ancestors of th Cambrian critters during long ages before them.He expected future generations to find them
arsjth 2 years ago
Er... what? I never said that the Theory of Evolution was perfect. You do, however, seem to assume that I said as such.
Funnily enough, Einstein wasn't one of those who was laughed at, because in his day we had the Scientific Method and people weren't burned to death for going against Scripture.
maslab 2 years ago
The bishops have teamed up with the scientific elite before. It was against Galileo and copernicus who thought the earth was not the centre of the universe and the earth revolved around the sun.
They didnt like ideas going against the consensus at all.
Why would u use bishops as some sort of scientific authority on our beginnings and the design of life?
strange to use someone u consider deluded as part of your argument. i guess u will use anyone for your benefit. that is the darwinian way.
arsjth 2 years ago
Right, because Creationism is a brand new idea that has loads of support and evidence for it.
Pull the other one.
We don't use them as scientific authority, but as support that you do not have to be Atheist to think Evolution is possible.
maslab 2 years ago
no true. i can think evolution is possible, i just cant be convinced of it by the evidence.
U have 1001 excuses why there r few gradual transformations in the fossil record, y it reveals stasis as the norm, y we see no creatures resembling their supposed ancestor. but we dont see much evidence.its presumed2b true & alternatives r dismissed due2lack of proof despite the lack in GTE.just because creatures change doesnt mean that they were once 1 single protein that came2life from an explosion!
arsjth 2 years ago
They didn't come to life from an explosion.
And once you start looking you find there are mounds upon mounds of evidence for evolution. Not just excuses.
Look it up.
maslab 2 years ago
sorry mate the big bang was an explosion and no life existed before it. so the explosion is the causal event of life starting.
Once u start believing evolution the evidence for what u believe mounts up. just as once u believe creation the evidence mounts up.
lets face it...no one observed it, no one can repeat it, no one can provide empirical proof that it happened so it is all circumstantial based on peoples beliefs in probability.
To me its improbable that humans evolved from fish
arsjth 2 years ago
@arsjth, part 2
The big bang is (possibly, not for sure) the causal event to existence, not life. Life didn't start till billions of years later. It's only a cause of life in the way that life could not exist if there were no existence.
Anyway, as I stated before, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life or the universe. It only says that living things reproduce with variation, and that over long periods of time this causes speciation. So get it right next time, eh?
JorickW89 2 years ago
dont hide from what u believe!
a big bang caused life.
if you believe it didnt and that life came about from some other means please say so now.
dont hide behind 'evolution only deals with life after it begun'.
because creationists believe in evolution becos it means change. they just dont believe that microbial soup became humans & u do.
plus u believe its entirely accidental & they believe that God created it
arsjth 2 years ago
No it didn't. The biggest theory right now about the origins of life on Earth is abiogenesis. Look it up.
That "microbial soup" did now become humans. It became amino acids, which became some other kind of chemicals... I don't know the exact order in which things happened.
Er... we hide behind that excuse because that is what evolution means by definition. It does not deal with the origin of life and thus has nothing to do with it. It deals with the diversity of life, nothing more.
maslab 2 years ago
"I don't know the exact order in which things happened."
of course you dont...these things are not known but are speculated on. u will never know them.
just like the speed of light was always assumed to be constant yet now we understand its variable and appears to be slowing down.
What you know today u find out u dont know tomorrow.
Only the very arrogant assume they know it all.
arsjth 2 years ago
Funny thing is, just because I don't know doesn't mean we have a fair understanding of it. Scientists do have a fairly good grasp about how life came from basic amino acids once those formed.
And no, the speed of light has not been slowing down.
If it is, provide your proof and explain why it would be.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab "Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe.1"
Davies, P.C.W., Davis, T.M. and Lineweaver, C.H., Black holes constrain varying constants, Nature 418(6898):602603, 8 August 2002.
arsjth 2 years ago
Good for them. I won't buy it until I actually see some form of proof.
And even if that were true, how would that affect the age of the universe?
maslab 2 years ago
if stars r really well over 6000 light years away, how could light have had time to travel from them to Earth? Two logically possible answers have serious problems:
God created the starlight on its way: this suffers grievously from the fact that starlight also carries information about distant cosmic events. The created-in-transit theory means that the information would be phony, recording events which never happened, hence deceptive.
The distances are deceptive: but despite some anomalies...
arsjth 2 years ago
Or because there is an even simpler solution:
The Earth is much older than 6000 years old.
maslab 2 years ago
there u go w ur pre-existing bias again.
dont look at what is actually being discovered. dont contemplate that the generally accepted view maybe wrong. u wil fit in2 the scientific hierarchy perfectly. ofc u will never discover anything new but u will hav that warm feeling of acceptance by ur peers.After all peer approval is what its all abt.
it may wel b much older than 6000 yrs but it also may not b the generally accepted billions of yrs old either.
interesting!
but u go along w th crowd
arsjth 2 years ago
lol
I question everything I can everyday of my life. I often have a hard time getting to sleep because I refuse to stop thinking.
I never claimed the earth was billions of years old, but you automatically assumed that I did.
What is this about preexisting bias, again?
maslab 2 years ago
...in redshift/distance correlations (see Galaxy-Quasar Connection Defies Explanation), its just not possible for all stars and galaxies to be within a 6000-light-year radius—we would all fry!
But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.
arsjth 2 years ago
Why? Light being faster would create more heat.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab "intriguingly, it now turns out that the fine-structure constant is in fact slightly different in light from distant stars compared to nearby ones. In fact, this is the very reason that physicists of the stature of Davies are now prepared to challenge the assumption that light speed has always been constant."
Scientists have no idea about how life came from basic amino acids either.
Its all speculation that u have bought hook line & sinker without the slightest molecule of proof.
arsjth 2 years ago
They do.
What have you bought, hook, line, and sinker? To be honest, you don't really have the right to toss that one at me.
maslab 2 years ago
No, I'm not hiding from what I believe. I'm telling you what I believe: that evolution is what evolution actually is, not what creationists like to define it as. I don't know how life started, and it is irrelevant to evolution.
Furthermore, it's a blatant lie to say creationists accept evolution as true. They say that their deity created everything as it says in so-and-so holy book. And all of them say "everything was created to be as it is now." Quit using bullshit definitions, please.
JorickW89 2 years ago
It was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space and time. Learn what it actually is.
And evolution has been observed. Type in "observed instances of speciation" in to google and you can find at least twenty observed and documented times in which one species evolved in to another.
maslab 2 years ago 3
i keep repeating that even creationists believe that evolution happens by natural selection. That doesnt infer that all life came from an original single cell nor that whales used to be wolf like creatures nor that creatures without wings grew wings because they thought they might need them some day and in the mean time nubs were really useful for escaping from predators.
Sometimes it takes courage to say 'we just dont know' its more scientifically honest as well.
arsjth 2 years ago
Thing is, there are answers for all of those.
And I agree, it is better to say "I don't know" at all times rather than fill the holes with junk.
maslab 2 years ago
@arsjth, your comment on wings is actually not accurate, so let me point you towards the truth: wings did not evolve from stubs in the shoulders of animals. A grade-schooler could tell you that wings are actually the arms of birds, and were originally derived from flaps of skin.
chaOsMastaGuru 2 years ago
@chaOsMastaGuru
lol.
so birds had flaps of skin hanging from their arms and these turned into keratin & feathers etc?
gee i thought they grew due to the coding in their genes!
If that were the case then u would have to accept that the coding in their genes changed due to some other reason?
what is it that changes genetic coding to produce substances that its not currently producing?
what causes new genetic material to appear?
where did the flaps of skin come from?
arsjth 2 years ago
No, they don't grow to the coding in their genes. Evolution occurs as a result of environmental attrition to which a species adapts. Genes just make that individual.
Production of new genetic material is fairly simple. Start with two letters AA. Then a mutation occurs and makes it AB. Another mutation occurs that copies one bit and makes it ABB.
There. You've just made new genetic material.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab "Evolution occurs as a result of environmental attrition to which a species adapts." Yes!
New genetic material is not simple. in most cases i know of changes can be shown to be the switching on or off of existing genes.
To say start with 2 letters and change them does not mean that A's change to B's in nature. If its not observable then we cant use it as a mechanism.
Have u got an example of A changing to to B that can be conclusively proven to be genetic material that wasnt there b4?
arsjth 2 years ago
I was using that as an example, but really genetic code is made by a total combination of all the letters that have a nigh on unlimited combinations.
And, to use a simple term, you see A going to B when the Manx evolved. Straight from a species with a tail to a species without one.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
The manx is an eg of loss of genetic information not creation of new genetic info.
what is A &what is B? do they represent anything?
a better analogy might be aabbaa going to aabba where loss of a = loss of tail.
i would like to c where a species with no tail starts to grow tails. although i believe th coding 4 tails is in th genes & is switched on or off depending on what is required. a default in this process can sometime result in that happening, as in chicken w teeth.coding is there
arsjth 2 years ago
"Have u got an example of A changing to to B that can be conclusively proven to be genetic material that wasnt there b4? "
That's what you asked for. You didn't ask for NEW genetic information.
If you want that, merely look up "observed instances of speciation" in google to find at least 20 times in which humans observed one species becoming another. There is also the matter of the eye and other sensory organs.
maslab 2 years ago
what makes u think speciation is relevant2 creation of new genetic material?
If life started off as a single cell then@some point btw there&now incredible complexity & an increase in genetic information has arisen.
What are some of the examples of genetic information increasing?
can you also answer y if life was a chance event, that it hasnt happened again in billions of years? Shouldnt it be happening around us all the time?
We hav an abundance of the building blocks of life freely available!
arsjth 2 years ago
Because that's where new traits are most commonly seen...
Ever heard of a mule? A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62. A mule has 63. You might say that's just a decrease for a horse, but you still have to admit that it's an increase from the donkey.
How do you know it hasn't happened again? The common theory is that, oh, gee, maybe the Earth is not like it was billions of years ago?
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
tobacco has 48 chromosomes....like the chimpanzee and the hare.
perhaps we evolved from the tobacco plant via a magical melding chromosome?
more seriously, are u now aware that we have proof that lizard like creatures walked on all fours prior to Tiktaalik?
This shoots down the evolutionary theory and the neat line of fossil evidence claiming tiktaalik was the creature to evolve the ability to walk.
oh dear all those neat facts down the drain! i thought it was fact! 100% proven?
oops
arsjth 2 years ago
*facepalm*
No. A creature is a makeup of its ancestry. You do not grow out of that. Ever.
Yes, I am aware. I also know that that claim is bullshit. What it simply means is that biologists now have to rethink how long ago the Tetrapods first existed. It by no means changes the fact that species change over time due to environmental attrition.
PZ Myers explained why in one of his blog posts. I'll send you the link in a PM.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
" It by no means changes the fact that species change over time due to environmental attrition."
it is fascinating.
these things were established proven facts last week. now we have evidence that tiktaalik was not the creature that left the water for the land. That is the true BS. scientists said it was...drew pretty pictures to demonstrate how it left the water, but it didnt.
not sure u get it. everything u have been taught & swallowed about the tetrapod evolution is 'crap'.
arsjth 2 years ago
I honestly never knew about tiktaalik and tetrapods before all this crap. I mainly looked at Archeopteryx, birds and apes. Still do.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
"I honestly never knew about tiktaalik and tetrapods before all this crap."
of course you didnt. its not uncommon for people to believe things they know nothing about.
They accept the word of the so called experts in that area. This leaves them vulnerable to their teachings.
Now you know. the pictures in the books with tetrapods showing a smooth line from tiktaalik was wrong.
another eg of evolutionists claiming fact where its not. more proof of other anomalies will come.& b dismissed
arsjth 2 years ago
And yet I learned. And I found it to fit.
I don't believe things fully until I at least have a relatively good grasp on their workings.
maslab 2 years ago
oh i see, you are not influenced by your peer group.
also when you were being taught evolution at school you had a critical mind towards it and said 'i want proof before i believe this!'
no u were like every other kid who swallowed what the teacher told u.
They say it fits so u believe it fits. They tell u y it fits & u accept it from the authority figure. The bias of texts is obvious no evidence of any contrary ideas trying to prove science wrong (as they always say they are doing). lol.
arsjth 2 years ago
You apparently didn't swallow it :P
I'm an atheist. I grew up in a Jewish household. Most of my friends are Christian, and one of them is a Creationist!
So you do NOT get to tell me when I am open-minded or not.
Evolution made sense when I first learned about it. I actually kind of giggled when I first heard of it. But over the years the evidence I've seen has convinced me that evolution does occur, and that the world is more than 4 billion years old.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
I have friends that are Gay but that doesnt mean that i am open to being gay.
I am not open minded to the possibility at all.
I am not open minded to the possibility that it should be taught as an alternative lifestyle to children either.
But i love my friend no less becos of it.
I have friends who are atheists,my dad was2, this does not mean im open minded2atheism.
Evolution is not a new idea..just a repackaged old belief from 2600 yrs ago.
Modern science has adopted it without proof
arsjth 2 years ago
*facepalm*
That's it. You are officially a troll. I know I'm bad at detecting these things, and I've just been feeding you, but your post is so full of shit it's not even worth pissing on anymore.
maslab 2 years ago 2
@maslab
Face palm?
really?
which part of the post was false?
this is so typical of those atheists who believe their views are backed up by science yet they run away cursing those who dare to stand up against them.
Your language reveals your inner anger....strange from some1 who has truth on his side.
If some1argues about gravity w me....i dont get angry and call them a troll. I just simply talk of the science & how its proved & ask him to test it for himself.
Y do u get angry when challenged?
arsjth 2 years ago
"I have friends that are Gay but that doesnt mean that i am open to being gay. I am not open minded to the possibility that it should be taught as an alternative lifestyle to children either."
I'm sorry, what?
Dude, do you think the average male would have gay sex even IF it were socially acceptable? No! You act like homosexuality is some incredibly appealing temptation we all have to fight tooth and nail to resist. It doesn't work like that. At all.
RaustBD 2 years ago 8
@RaustBD
"You act like homosexuality is some incredibly appealing temptation we all have to fight tooth and nail to resist."
no i dont.
that is your poor interpretation of what i have said.
arsjth 2 years ago
@maslab
what i am hearing is that no matter what the evidence is or how many times it is diecredited we will not change our thinking on evolution.
this is because it was excepted as a fact before the evidence was in place. as darwin said the lack of transitional fossils would destroy his theory.
no fossils? so we make them up. the tetrapod line was presented as the most sure & best evidence. but it was made up. no proof. when u go away from empirical evidence u wil get caught out regularly.
arsjth 2 years ago
Darwin said he'd have to find transitional forms to prove his theory.
One was found two years later.
The tetrapod line is by no means the best. What about our own?
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, there was relatively little evidence in the fossil record of evolutionary change. Darwin spent two chapters of his book apologising for the paucity of the fossil record, but predicted that it would eventually support his ideas.
one was found 2 yrs later?
considering all creation evolved from one cell..there should be a virtually unbroken smooth transition from 1 phyla2the next from 1 species to the next, shouldnt there?
arsjth 2 years ago
@maslab
"observed instances of speciation"
i went to talk origins and they are mainly fruitflies and plants as observed instances of speciation.
I dont know how this helps make any case for common ancestry.
Creationists dont deny speciation so where do u think the knockout punch is?
regards
arsjth 2 years ago
So you're saying that they do buy evolution and agree that the earth is more than 6000 years old?
Please.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
evolution is a fact. this just means that things change. natural selection acts on existing traits and selects for them based on whether it causes then to survive or not.
whether this can ultimately create limitless changes and create previously non-existing limbs&organs is debatable.
all we would need was some solid evidence that it happens.
what would i consider solid? observation of it happening. eg something in the process of changing because it has been doing it4 billions of yrs.
arsjth 2 years ago
Type in "observed instances of speciation" in to google. You'll find many examples of scientists directly observing one species evolving in to another.
maslab 2 years ago
@maslab
"observed instances of speciation"
done it many times.
speciation is not unusual. not sure y u think this is conclusive evidence that a lung can develop where genes for lungs dont exist.
or a wing where genes for wings dont exist.
or legs where legs dont exist?
a bird becoming a separate bird species is different to it growing scales & becoming a fish. just not going to ever happen & never did imo.
its merely a naturalistic fairytale to explain what we cant understand...how life begun
arsjth 2 years ago
So you're saying that you need conclusive proof of one species developing in to something else, and one species becoming another doesn't fit?
Give me a fucking break.
I honestly don't know whether the creation of new DNA has actually occurred. I am by no means in a position to test if it has.
We are not created by little bits of our DNA acting independently, but the sum of all our DNA acting to create something complex. Change one thing, you change the creature.
maslab 2 years ago